Question about the death penalty

[SpiritMeadow]

This is incorrect if you mean by it that a Catholic must oppose the death penalty. In the early 1200’s, pope Innocent III required the Waldensiens, who opposed the death penalty but wanted reconciliation with the Church, to accept that: *“The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.” *If your assertion is correct then the Waldensiens were right and the Church was wrong until 1995.

If you expect me to respond don’t take a sentence out of a post and add it to another sentence from another post. I can’t answer you. Tell me what post you refer to in the above. The one below I found and will respond to…

“Only a morality which acknowledges certain norms as valid always and for everyone, with no exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence”. (JPII Veritatis splendor) The Church has always held that morality does not change with place and time. If what Aquinas said was right when he said it it is every bit as true today.

I have no idea what you think this means vis a vis what I said.

If there is a reason to refrain from the death penalty it can only be for the prudential reason that it does more harm than good. The Church has always recognized (and does even today) that the state has the moral right to execute criminals for particularly heinous crimes.

Ender

Well apparently you are not reading what is posted. That is simply not the statements made by the Vatican and the USCCB. It is not a weighing of harm vs good as you state. That is not the standard. The only acceptable standard is the the infliction of death is the only means available to protect society. And the Pope has said that this is nearly always not the case. Perhaps a review of the documents I cited will assist you in learning the correct position.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Actually the Church has spoken infallibly that such determinations fall within the scope of the authority of the State and not the Church, which is why the absence of any suggestion of a formal shift away from that general understanding if both notable and important. Attempting to interpret the more recent statements in a manner that contradicts teachings that are within the scope of ordinary infallibility is guaranteed to produce an unreliable conclusion.

And your authority for stating that the Church has spoken infallibly that the matter of the Death Penalty is and cannot be within the province of the Church to comment on and declare upon?

Yes, JP II has said that. However, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, he cannot make that a binding declaration because the actual authority to decide whether the DP can be supported in particular instances belongs only to the States. JP II never took that authority away, yet your interpretation of the import of those statements presumes that it does. If you start from the clear teaching that making that determination falls within the authority of the State to determine, JP II’s statements (and the statements of the USCCB based solely on that opinion of his) can be nothing more than a personal suggestion.

Did the Vatican give the power to the state alone or did the state tell the vatican that it could not speak to it? I have no interpretation…THE statements speak for themselves quite clearly…
what part of : This is a time to teach clearly, encourage reflection, and call for a common action in the Catholic community to bring about an end to the use of the death penalty in our land. USCCB 2005. do I need to interpret?

Where do you get the notion that the USCCB position is based soley on one statement of JPII? A personal suggestion? lol…They have had the same position they claim for 25 years…So for 25 years the Vatican has allowed the USCCB its personal opinion?
Why is it exactly that you want to be against the wishes of 2 popes and your own council of bishops on this issue?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, you have said this. The problem I have is with the fact that you have also said

and that is not true. That is why I say you are being misleading.

Intrinsically evil would mean that by its very nature the death penalty were an evil act and could never under any circumstances be used. That is wrong.

You chose to use improper words. You call me an intentional liar when in fact, now all you say is that you think I have misinterpreted intrinsic evil. That is quite a bit of difference. I believe a reading of the USCCB document on voting does suggest that the DP is to be considered intrinsically evil. I may be wrong. That is how I read it.

And by saying that it is intrinsically evil you give the impression that the popes and saints who supported the death penalty in certain circumstances were wrong and therefore in mortal sin by approving of an intrinsically evil act - an act that could never be moral.

Yes of course, it has never ever happened ever that the church has ever made a mistake of any kind. I know the drill. But that is not being said at all. The CCC clearly indicates that the basis of the DP is that the offender cannot be contained in any satisfactory way. In some countries that may still hold true, and undoubtedly was true to a greater degree in the past. It may hold true in extraordinary circumstances perhaps as well. But in most civilized and industrialized nations today, penal systems are such that that concern is very small. The Vatican acknowledges that is now the case in the US as does the USCCB.

I am not arguing for the death penalty. I am not even saying that I support it. I am saying that it is not an intrinsically evil act. And, given that it can potentially be used, it is misleading for anyone to say that “the Catholic Church is against the death penalty”.

James

I have been shown no proof that the DP is not considered TODAY as intrinsically evil in this country by the USCCB and tacitly by the Vatican. It is not misteading in any manner to say that the church leans strongly against the use of the DP at this time. Why do you wish the Church to be noted for a position it clearly is moving away from? I simply do not understand what is being protected here?

 

[James0235]

You chose to use improper words. You call me an intentional liar when in fact, now all you say is that you think I have misinterpreted intrinsic evil. That is quite a bit of difference. I believe a reading of the USCCB document on voting does suggest that the DP is to be considered intrinsically evil. I may be wrong. That is how I read it.

Please point out where I have called you an intentional liar. This is what I said:

SpiritMeadow,

Whether it is intentional or not you are misleading people about the Catholic teaching on the death penalty. It is permitted for Catholics to support the death penalty.

I said that you are misleading people. And I said that it may or may not be intentional. That is a far cry from calling you an intentional liar. Can you show me where I called you an intentional liar? If not then I expect you to retract your accusation.

I have been shown no proof that the DP is not considered TODAY as intrinsically evil in this country by the USCCB and tacitly by the Vatican. It is not misteading in any manner to say that the church leans strongly against the use of the DP at this time. Why do you wish the Church to be noted for a position it clearly is moving away from?

Something cannot be morally acceptable today and then intrinsically evil tomorrow. Again, I really don’t think you understand what that means. An act which is intrinsically evil is evil by its very nature. It can never under any circumstances be permitted. The fact that the Church has said and still says that the death penalty can be used under certain circumstances means that it is not intrinsically evil.

The Church will never declare the DP to be intrinsically evil because it has already, on many occasions, declared it to be not intrinsically evil.

An act is either intrinsically evil or it is not. This cannot be changed. Do you think that the Church will ever declare rape to be a morally acceptable act. No! It is intrinsically evil. It can never be a moral act. And since the Church has said that the DP can be a morally acceptable act it cannot reverse this and declare it to be intrinsically evil.

I simply do not understand what is being protected here?

What is being protected here is truth. As Catholics we believe that truth is what it is. We have no power to change it. I don’t understand why you want the Church to change the death penalty to an intrinsically evil act when it has no power to do so. The Church upholds, protects, and teaches the truth. It does not attempt to change it.

James

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I believe that you are intentionally ignoring that the Church has not made any sort of formal indication that it is changing its position about the authority to actually make that determination resting solely with the State…

… However, when considering an issue that the Church still holds to be a prudential judgment within the authority of the State…

Actually the Church has spoken infallibly that such determinations fall within the scope of the authority of the State and not the Church…
Yes, JP II has said that. However, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, he cannot make that a binding declaration because the actual authority to decide whether the DP can be supported in particular instances belongs only to the States… If you start from the clear teaching that making that determination falls within the authority of the State to determine…

…
Further, there are explicit and irrevocable proofs in both scripture and Tradition that the authority to determine when the use of the Death Penalty is required rests with the State…

Can you cite a Church document which restricts this authority to the State?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

And your authority for stating that the Church has spoken infallibly that the matter of the Death Penalty is and cannot be within the province of the Church to comment on and declare upon?

Its members can certainly comment, but the Church has already declared the limits of its authority vs. the State in this matter.

Gen. 9:5-6
Romans 13:1-4
1 Pet 2:13
John 19:11
Luke 23:41

St. Augustine writes in The City of God: The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice
Catechism of the Council of Trent states in the Fifth Commandment section: Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope. Pope Pius XII, in an important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of their crimes.
Pope Pius XII, 1953:
“Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live.” (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.)"

cont…

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Where do you get the notion that the USCCB position is based soley on one statement of JPII? A personal suggestion?
lol…They have had the same position they claim for 25 years…So for 25 years the Vatican has allowed the USCCB its personal opinion?

Just how long did the Vatican allow the USCCB to keep an inaccurately translated missal? How long did the US bishops cover up the abuse scandal before the Vatican noticed how bad things really were?

I would note that a great deal of the opposition of the USCCB prior to EV focused on disparities in sentencing and representation for the condemned and likely over-use, sentiments I agree with while not failing to consider categories of inmates whom have remained dangerous even in solitary confinement in modern facilities.

Why is it exactly that you want to be against the wishes of 2 popes and your own council of bishops on this issue?

Canon Law 212:[The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors [bishops] their views on matters that concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Truth happens to have more weight with me than passing fancies. Though my position can’t even be considered “dissent” since it is explicitly identified as allowable, your own signature line captures the heart of why I’m not willing to simply submit to the current trend while major questions about its prudence and factual basis have been pointedly ignored by both JP II and the USCCB…

But in most civilized and industrialized nations today, penal systems are such that that concern is very small. The Vatican acknowledges that is now the case in the US as does the USCCB.

Yet this is not within the purview of the Vatican and the USCCB to determine, especially when they are collectively declining to address significant questions about what to do in some fairly common cases among the condemned where simply locking them up isn’t sufficient (notably crime bosses, terrorists who continue to preach violence against legitimate authority, serial killers with fan clubs that encourage copycats, and those that manage to kill again while already in solitary confinement or in the course of escaping from lesser sentences).

Sources /See also / further reading
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/the_death_penal.html
seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html
dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may31mdi.htm

 

[TMC]

Ahhh, but there is a distinction between this and the other “Cafeteria” issues: the Church has a clear prior record on this that is inconsistent with interpretations that require a presumption that the Church has assumed the authority to actually make a determination of the technological capabilities and their level of implementation. Over and over again the Church has drawn a line that says that its authority in areas of faith and morals does not extend to making scientific declarations by fiat.

Further, there are explicit and irrevocable proofs in both scripture and Tradition that the authority to determine when the use of the Death Penalty is required rests with the State.

On none of the true “Cafeteria” issues can you point to a tradition of the Church holding a position IN DIRECT OPPOSITION to what is proposed by interpretations of more current statements. The Church has already declared that she does not have the authority to make that decision for the State in much the same way that she has declared she does not have the authority to ordain women priests.

Whatever. If your position is seriously that you are more competent than the Church to say what it “really” teaches or which teachings are “really” consistent with history and the deposit of faith and which are merely “current interpretations” then I guess you can believe whatever you want and just declare it Catholic. I don’t think that is the way the Church views it, and I think the document I pointed to from the deposit of faith makes that very clear. But then I suppose you can declare that “inconsistent” with your view of the faith, too.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just how long did the Vatican allow the USCCB to keep an inaccurately translated missal? How long did the US bishops cover up the abuse scandal before the Vatican noticed how bad things really were?

I would note that a great deal of the opposition of the USCCB prior to EV focused on disparities in sentencing and representation for the condemned and likely over-use, sentiments I agree with while not failing to consider categories of inmates whom have remained dangerous even in solitary confinement in modern facilities.

Canon Law 212:[The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors [bishops] their views on matters that concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.
Truth happens to have more weight with me than passing fancies. Though my position can’t even be considered “dissent” since it is explicitly identified as allowable, your own signature line captures the heart of why I’m not willing to simply submit to the current trend while major questions about its prudence and factual basis have been pointedly ignored by both JP II and the USCCB…

Yet this is not within the purview of the Vatican and the USCCB to determine, especially when they are collectively declining to address significant questions about what to do in some fairly common cases among the condemned where simply locking them up isn’t sufficient (notably crime bosses, terrorists who continue to preach violence against legitimate authority, serial killers with fan clubs that encourage copycats, and those that manage to kill again while already in solitary confinement or in the course of escaping from lesser sentences).

Sources /See also / further reading
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?ID=15
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/the_death_penal.html
seattlecatholic.com/article_20040406.html
dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may31mdi.htm

Got ya. So the popes are wrong, and the USCCB is wrong. Anyone else wrong? Have you gotten any word back in your attempt to set them straight in Rome?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Whatever. If your position is seriously that you are more competent than the Church to say what it “really” teaches or which teachings are “really” consistent with history and the deposit of faith and which are merely “current interpretations” then I guess you can believe whatever you want and just declare it Catholic. I don’t think that is the way the Church views it, and I think the document I pointed to from the deposit of faith makes that very clear. But then I suppose you can declare that “inconsistent” with your view of the faith, too.

My position doesn’t conflict with the Catechism of Trent, prior papal documents, and statements of faith that was required of a group that was in schism involving this very issue. For that matter, my position is completely compatible with the version of the new CCC before the revision made after EV was released. I can even reconcile my position with the current statements by identifying the parts that must be prudential in nature if what has been affirmed by the Deposit of faith is timeless. But a presumption that EV and the things quoting it must be interpreted in a way that is either inconsistent with or directly contradicted by multiple scripture passages, the Doctors of the Church, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and various other papal statements and actions…?

No one has pointed to a case where the Church or even a current pope (past 1953) has declared that the exercise of death penalty is no longer reserved to the public authority. All that has been presented is your own interpretation that must now be the case in order to suggest a compulsion to assent to JP II’s postulation about the technical capability of “modern” prison systems. That kind of extended interpretation by declaring irrelevant the deposit of faith prior to the release of EV is part and parcel of the “Spirit of Vatican II” thinking that led the Church into its current crisis.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Please point out where I have called you an intentional liar. This is what I said:

I said that you are misleading people. And I said that it may or may not be intentional. That is a far cry from calling you an intentional liar. Can you show me where I called you an intentional liar? If not then I expect you to retract your accusation.

That is why I say you are being misleading. That is what you said the second time. The first time you said I was either intentionally misleading or not.

Misleading means lying to me. Perhaps you have some other definiton. If so, no problem. It’s certainly not central to this issue. I wondered at the time why you had to add the possibility that it was intentional. That certainly is quite an ungenerous assumption to make.

Something cannot be morally acceptable today and then intrinsically evil tomorrow. Again, I really don’t think you understand what that means. An act which is intrinsically evil is evil by its very nature. It can never under any circumstances be permitted. The fact that the Church has said and still says that the death penalty can be used under certain circumstances means that it is not intrinsically evil.

The Church will never declare the DP to be intrinsically evil because it has already, on many occasions, declared it to be not intrinsically evil.

An act is either intrinsically evil or it is not. This cannot be changed. Do you think that the Church will ever declare rape to be a morally acceptable act. No! It is intrinsically evil. It can never be a moral act. And since the Church has said that the DP can be a morally acceptable act it cannot reverse this and declare it to be intrinsically evil.

What is being protected here is truth. As Catholics we believe that truth is what it is. We have no power to change it. I don’t understand why you want the Church to change the death penalty to an intrinsically evil act when it has no power to do so. The Church upholds, protects, and teaches the truth. It does not attempt to change it.

James

So in your opinion, if the Church allows for the DP along very very limited lines, and if it comes to believe that there are essentially no limited application any more, it cannot declare it NOW an intrinsic evil? Is that what you assert?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

My position doesn’t conflict with the Catechism of Trent, prior papal documents, and statements of faith that was required of a group that was in schism involving this very issue. For that matter, my position is completely compatible with the version of the new CCC before the revision made after EV was released. I can even reconcile my position with the current statements by identifying the parts that must be prudential in nature if what has been affirmed by the Deposit of faith is timeless. But a presumption that EV and the things quoting it must be interpreted in a way that is either inconsistent with or directly contradicted by multiple scripture passages, the Doctors of the Church, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and various other papal statements and actions…?

No one has pointed to a case where the Church or even a current pope (past 1953) has declared that the exercise of death penalty is no longer reserved to the public authority. All that has been presented is your own interpretation that must now be the case in order to suggest a compulsion to assent to JP II’s postulation about the technical capability of “modern” prison systems. That kind of extended interpretation by declaring irrelevant the deposit of faith prior to the release of EV is part and parcel of the “Spirit of Vatican II” thinking that led the Church into its current crisis.

Actually you pretty much believe everything from Vatican II to be heretical correct? That’s certainly the way I’m reading your statements.

I am just wondering why you wish to support the DP since even by your own claims, its your decision to make. All who argue that the Church is wrong in its statements now are most vociferous that we all understand that you are free to favor the DP. Your reasoning? Just wondering…of course. I was curious as to why some wished to defy their popes by finding technical reasons why they needed be followed, but it seem you give no credance to either the last 2 popes or the USCCB, so I just wonder what your theory is that the DP is a good thing.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Got ya. So the popes are wrong, and the USCCB is wrong. Anyone else wrong? Have you gotten any word back in your attempt to set them straight in Rome?

Wrong? As in, that is not their opinion? I’ve never claimed such a thing. It was certainly stated in an easily confused manner, but there were quite a few things like that in the Vatican II era that are starting to be clarified with B16’s leadership.

Now, as to the claim you and others are making that Catholics are required to assen to that opinion based on your own theory that their having merely stated a position themselves mandates assent to an unstated extrapolation that the exercise of the death penalty in punishment for crime is no longer reserved to the public authority? Yes, that I’ll call “wrong”, but it is not the current popes making that claim, so the place to set it straight is with the people rejecting papal statements from as recently as 1953 directly addressing that issue.

Do you reject the part of Vatican I which directly taught that theological innovations unsupported by sacred tradition did not falling under the authority of the papal office? Most of the “Spirit of Vatican II” types that think the deposit of faith was purged in the 1960s, and you seem to be taking on that attitude with regard to this particular issue.

 

[Ender]

If you expect me to respond don’t take a sentence out of a post and add it to another sentence from another post. I can’t answer you. Tell me what post you refer to in the above.

Both of your statements are in the same post. Click on the blue box with the white arrow in the first quote box; that will take you to the post I cited.(#29)

I have no idea what you think this means vis a vis what I said.

You referred to comments by the “long dead” as if old statements of truth are somehow less valid than new ones.

The only acceptable standard is the the infliction of death is the only means available to protect society. And the Pope has said that this is nearly always not the case.

Everyone knows and understands what was said in 2267 and Evangelium vitae. The issue is not that I don’t understand it but that I don’t accept that it is either binding or, in light of the constant teaching of the Church on this and other relevant issues, correct .

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Actually you pretty much believe everything from Vatican II to be heretical correct? That’s certainly the way I’m reading your statements.

Ahh, another hallmark of the “Spirit of Vatican II” thinking - anyone who doesn’t pitch everything from before Vatican II must be a heretic if they don’t agree with currently popular interpretations that require doing so.

No, I’m quite the opposite. I don’t reject (or consider heretical) any of the things Vatican II actually stated, but I’m just not of a mindset to pretend the parts of the deposit of faith prior to then don’t exist if they conflict with the position currently in vogue.

I was curious as to why some wished to defy their popes by finding technical reasons why they needed be followed, but it seem you give no credance to either the last 2 popes or the USCCB, so I just wonder what your theory is that the DP is a good thing.

Neither of the “two popes” have stated that the authority to exercise the death penalty no longer rests with the State (neither has the USCCB for that matter). That is a required presumption if one wishing to place a binding authority on their statements rather than treating them prudentially, but not a presumption that has any sort of reliability when one of their immediate predecessors directly stated that authority did belong to the State.

Let it be noted again, after repeated request for those making that claim to do so, no one has produced any clear statement of the Church formally reversing or limiting the authority of the State to exercise the Death Penalty established as the consistent and documented position of the Church from the time the Scriptures were written through at least 1952. I have provided the proofs you asked for, now it is time to cough up something more than an unstated extrapolation.

 

[Ender]

Did the Vatican give the power to the state alone or did the state tell the vatican that it could not speak to it?

Neither. The Vatican has no authority to grant or limit the power of the state. This is Ray’s point: God’s laws define what the state may or may not do and the state’s authority cannot be abridged by anyone, even a pope.

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Wrong? As in, that is not their opinion? I’ve never claimed such a thing. It was certainly stated in an easily confused manner, but there were quite a few things like that in the Vatican II era that are starting to be clarified with B16’s leadership.

Now, as to the claim you and others are making that Catholics are required to assen to that opinion based on your own theory that their having merely stated a position themselves mandates assent to an unstated extrapolation that the exercise of the death penalty in punishment for crime is no longer reserved to the public authority? Yes, that I’ll call “wrong”, but it is not the current popes making that claim, so the place to set it straight is with the people rejecting papal statements from as recently as 1953 directly addressing that issue.

Do you reject the part of Vatican I which directly taught that theological innovations unsupported by sacred tradition did not falling under the authority of the papal office? Most of the “Spirit of Vatican II” types that think the deposit of faith was purged in the 1960s, and you seem to be taking on that attitude with regard to this particular issue.

Nope, not at all, I’m just accepting the clear statements of 2 popes and the USCCB and I find that they are saying that the DP is no longer acceptable. It is not my sole opinion. It’s been reported on in a number of Catholic magazines and news agencies, some of them on the internet. They seem, unlike you to agree to what I said. It’s not my opinion, but their’s that I share in. I would never presume to correctly negociate 2000 years of magisterial teaching without specialized training and then spout that as truth. It is what other professionals whose business it is to follow these things claim. I just agree that the analysis and sources I was sent to seem to back them up.

 

[DL82]

Interesting link:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7183957.stm

The documentary was quite interesting, though also disturbing, can be viewed for the next 6 days here:
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/page/item/b008rdyh.shtml

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Both of your statements are in the same post. Click on the blue box with the white arrow in the first quote box; that will take you to the post I cited.(#29)
You referred to comments by the “long dead” as if old statements of truth are somehow less valid than new ones.

Everyone knows and understands what was said in 2267 and Evangelium vitae. The issue is not that I don’t understand it but that I don’t accept that it is either binding or, in light of the constant teaching of the Church on this and other relevant issues, correct .

Ender

Thanks for the tip on how to find old posts. I’d never known that before.

As to the last, I can appreciate that. You disagree that the teachings are either binding or correct. You are simply in disagreement. And when you feel that you are right and the present church teaching is wrong, based on some other church teaching you do adher to, you choose what you think is most correct and follow your conscience…we simply them, disagree, and have no further reason to debate. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Neither. The Vatican has no authority to grant or limit the power of the state. This is Ray’s point: God’s laws define what the state may or may not do and the state’s authority cannot be abridged by anyone, even a pope.

Ender

Of course the Vatican has no power to grant or limit power to the state. That kinda goes without saying I would presume. The Vatican does not and cannot do this vis a vis any issue. It may however comment against any action or law it deems immoral. At least I would certainly argue it can. It “interfers” with states all the time by telling some they are acting immorally on any number of issues.

Are you claiming that God has allowed the death penalty and therefore the Church is powerless to argue against it ? Or claiming that the God through the Church has given power over the DP to the state and may not now abrogate that?